French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte Macron, have launched a second defamation lawsuit against American conservative podcaster Candace Owens, intensifying a legal battle over online allegations about the French first lady’s identity.
The latest complaint was filed on November 4, 2026, in the US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, where Owens lives. It comes just weeks after a Delaware judge narrowed the couple’s original lawsuit, ruling that the court lacked jurisdiction over Owens personally while allowing the case against two companies associated with her to continue.
The new legal action signals that the Macrons are determined to pursue Owens directly in a court they say has the authority to hear the case.
According to reports from Reuters, AFP and The Guardian, the new complaint contains 88 claims involving defamation, false light and defamation by implication. The filing reportedly runs to 411 pages and accuses Owens of continuing to circulate allegations that the couple says are false and damaging.
Why the Macrons Filed a Second Lawsuit
The dispute centres on claims repeatedly promoted by Owens that Brigitte Macron was born male and assumed another person’s identity.
The Macrons have strongly rejected those allegations. Their legal filings identify Jean-Michel Trogneux, the name frequently cited in the conspiracy theory, as Brigitte Macron’s older brother.
The couple’s first US lawsuit was filed in Delaware in July 2025 against Owens and two businesses connected to her media operations: Candace Owens LLC and GeorgeTom Inc.
That complaint accused the podcaster of using her platform to spread what the Macrons described as false allegations about Brigitte’s identity, their marriage and an alleged cover-up. They argued that the claims damaged their reputations and subjected their family to worldwide harassment.
The new Tennessee case focuses on allegations that Owens continued promoting the disputed claims after the first lawsuit was filed.
The Macrons also accuse her of using the controversy to attract attention and generate revenue through podcast content, merchandise and donations.
These are allegations made by the plaintiffs and have not been established as findings by the Tennessee court.
The Brigitte Doll Becomes Part of the Legal Dispute
One unusual element of the latest complaint is Owens’ use of a doll depicting Brigitte Macron.
According to excerpts of the filing released by Owens, the Macrons describe the doll as a grotesque caricature used to ridicule the French first lady’s appearance.
The couple argue that the prop forms part of a wider pattern of public mockery and humiliation. Their complaint also alleges that Owens continued using the controversy to attract audiences and commercial support.
Owens acknowledged the new lawsuit in a post on X on November 9. She reportedly referred to the 88 claims and responded sarcastically to the dispute surrounding the doll.
Her reaction underscores how the legal confrontation has continued to play out publicly, with both sides drawing attention to the case through media coverage and online platforms.
Why the Delaware Ruling Matters
The second lawsuit follows a significant setback for the Macrons in Delaware.
On October 27, 2026, Delaware Superior Court Judge Sheldon Rennie ruled that the court did not have personal jurisdiction over Owens because she resides in Tennessee.
The ruling did not end the entire original case. The claims against Candace Owens LLC and GeorgeTom Inc. were allowed to continue at that stage.
The distinction is important: the judge’s decision concerned whether Delaware could exercise jurisdiction over Owens personally, not whether the disputed statements were true or whether the Macrons had suffered defamation.
By filing in Tennessee, the couple are now bringing their claims against Owens in the state where she lives.
Their lawyer told Reuters that Owens had repeatedly argued Tennessee was the appropriate location for the dispute and that the new filing gives her the forum she had requested.
The case is now a separate legal proceeding, and Owens will have an opportunity to respond through the US court system.
The Controversy Has a Longer History in France
The allegations targeting Brigitte Macron did not begin with Owens.
The conspiracy theory circulated in France around 2021 and gained international attention through online videos, social media posts and commentary.
A widely circulated 2021 YouTube interview featuring Natacha Rey and Amandine Roy helped amplify the claims. Brigitte Macron and her brother subsequently pursued legal action in France.
The controversy has repeatedly resurfaced whenever the French president and his wife attract major public attention.
In January 2026, an Associated Press report said a Paris court found 10 people guilty of cyberbullying Brigitte Macron through false and degrading online claims about her gender and sexuality. The defendants received a combination of prison and suspended sentences, and several were ordered to pay compensation.
That French proceeding is separate from the US litigation against Owens. It nevertheless illustrates how online conspiracy theories can move beyond political commentary and become matters involving harassment, reputation and legal accountability.
The First Amendment and the Challenge of Proving Defamation
The case also raises important questions about the limits of free speech in the United States.
American defamation law provides substantial protection for public debate, particularly when statements concern public figures. A public official or public figure generally faces a demanding legal standard and must establish that the defendant acted with actual malice — meaning knowledge that a statement was false or reckless disregard for whether it was false.
That does not mean public figures have no legal protection against defamatory statements. It means the court must examine the evidence, the nature of the statements and the applicable legal standards before deciding whether liability exists.
Owens has previously defended her position and presented the dispute as a free-speech issue. The Macrons, meanwhile, argue that their action concerns the repeated publication of false factual allegations and accusations of deception and criminal conduct.
The Tennessee court will have to assess the claims under the applicable law. Filing a lawsuit does not establish that either side has won.
A Wider Warning About Viral Misinformation
The Macron-Owens dispute has become more than a personal legal confrontation. It highlights the speed at which online allegations can cross national borders, reach millions of viewers and become difficult to contain.
Podcasts, video platforms and social networks allow commentators to build large audiences, but the same reach can magnify claims that may cause serious reputational harm.
For the Macrons, the legal strategy is an attempt to challenge what they describe as a sustained campaign of falsehoods. For Owens, the case presents another confrontation over the boundaries of political commentary and free expression.
The outcome could become an important test of how US courts handle allegations of defamation involving international public figures, online personalities and content distributed across multiple platforms.
For now, the second lawsuit has opened another chapter in a dispute that has already crossed courts in France and the United States.
The central question is no longer simply whether the Macrons can keep challenging the allegations. It is whether the new Tennessee case can proceed against Owens personally — and what evidence both sides will present as the legal battle moves forward.
